GameInformer now offers a "First Look At BioWare's New Franchise," which is a screenshot from an unannounced project. They say the game this is from will be unveiled at next month's Spike TV's Video Game Awards. It's not mentioned whether it will be eligible as 2011 game of the year.

And your retort is faulty. Since when does "able to talk through the game" a requirement for something to be an RPG? By that math, only Planescape is an RPG. And Mass Effect was just as quasi-linear anything else BioWare had previously made. It was "A, then BCDE in any order, then F" just like everything from Baldur's Gate thru Jade Empire and KotOR. So, *IF* you call BioWare's previous games RPGs, then Mass Effect was an RPG. Officially, you didn't, but most people with the idiotic view that ME1 isn't an RPG *DO* consider BW's previous games to be legit RPGs.

I'd argue that Bioware's games have always been on the weaker side of RPGs. All of their games have been combat-centric, with stealth and diplomacy typically not being options. Compare this to Fallout, Arcanum, Planescape, etc, where stealth and diplomacy can be used to complete most quests. Hell, I beat Arcanum without investing in any combat skills whatsoever.

What bothered me the most about it is that there really is that The Witcher 2 is mostly the same game as Mass Effect, just with swords instead of guns and choosing between supporting racists/terrorists instead of playing good cop/bad cop. Though TW2 does have a bit more branching. But somehow ME2 is a dumb action game and TW2 is the greatest RPG ever made.

While Witcher 2 may be combat-centric, your high-level choices actually have meaningful consequences. The second act is completely different based on the choices you make in the first. Conversely, your choices in the ME games don't really have any meaningful consequences. What impact did my choices in ME1 have in ME2? I got some e-mails and a few superficial cameo appearances.

The term 'RPG' has been used so loosely for so long that it has almost lost its meaning completely. Nowdays it usually just means a game with interactive dialog.

With pen and paper RPGs the definition is pretty clear. An RPG is basically a game in which players are given a character with specific motivations, and the player's job is to make choices that fit those motivations. The DM will provide a setting, and ensure the player's choices have appropriate consequences. A story progression is nice and improves enjoyment of the game, but is not actually mandatory.

Should a game like Final Fantasy be called an RPG? IIRC Final Fantasy games don't even have dialog options! The story progresses as you talk to the right people at the right times, but there are very few choices to be made. The player controls several characters, but you can't make any choices for them other than skill/equipment selection. That's hardly more RPG-ish than Doom Guy choosing to use a shotgun or a BFG.

I would say that Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 have RPG dialog. The dialog system allows you to guide your character's motivations (although you're usually restricted to two choices), and there are decisions which have permanent consequences in the universe. Outside of the dialog, though, there is very little role-playing.

briktal wrote on Nov 8, 2011, 09:24:What bothered me the most about it is that there really is that The Witcher 2 is mostly the same game as Mass Effect, just with swords instead of guns and choosing between supporting racists/terrorists instead of playing good cop/bad cop. Though TW2 does have a bit more branching. But somehow ME2 is a dumb action game and TW2 is the greatest RPG ever made.

When you can take something like Mass Effect and turn it into Deer Hunter over a couple of sequels and still make your sales figures, that about says it all.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Mass Effect was never much of an RPG to begin with. You couldn't sneak or talk your way through the game and the game as a whole was pretty linear. It was, above all else, a shooter.

I'd like to point out that from the very first day they announced Mass Effect, all the way back in 2005, IIRC, they have always SAID it would BE a shooter. A shooter with RPG elements, but they never claimed it would be a hardcore CRPG. I'm not sure why people keep lambasting them for it.

When you can take something like Mass Effect and turn it into Deer Hunter over a couple of sequels and still make your sales figures, that about says it all.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Mass Effect was never much of an RPG to begin with. You couldn't sneak or talk your way through the game and the game as a whole was pretty linear. It was, above all else, a shooter.

I'd like to point out that from the very first day they announced Mass Effect, all the way back in 2005, IIRC, they have always SAID it would BE a shooter. A shooter with RPG elements, but they never claimed it would be a hardcore CRPG. I'm not sure why people keep lambasting them for it.

wtf_man wrote on Nov 7, 2011, 22:39:They're making a new "RPG"... without character creation... without dialog choices... without experience points... without skills... without leveling... without magic... without melee... without quests... without story... must be purchased on Origin... AND most importantly... can't use a keyboard and mouse (must use gamepad to mash the "A-Button-Does-Something-Awesome" )

... And it's going to be called... "Mass Age of Defective Dragons 13: Not Another console Sequel... Really!"

Oh... and you get 1 hour of Game for $60... and have to buy 35 different DLC's at $29 a pop, that are about 20 minutes of add-on, before you get a full game.

someone's gettin' mad at video games.

Sort of.

I'm more pissed at what supposedly passes for an "RPG" nowadays, and that Bioware pretty much makes shitty games, now.

I guess I'm just dumbfounded that someone could love ME1 but hate ME2. Now, if they were devout old-school CRPG fans who thought FO3 and New Vegas sucked simply because they didn't have isometric, turn-based combat, that would make sense. However, ME1 and ME2 are not hugely different from one another.

Now *THAT* is a great quote! Too late to change my previous comment, but, oh well. Part of the hate for ME2 is the auto-hate that EA has earned. Personally, I don't consider ME to be a "hardcore" RPG, but I definitely don't think it's an RPG-lite. It's closer to, say, Vampire The Masquerade (is that the proper title? I'm talking about the one that came out right before Half-Life 2) than Diablo or Dungeon Siege on the "barely an RPG - to - hardcorestorydrivenRPG" scale. If Diablo is a 2 and Planescape is a 10 then Mass Effect is a 6.5. And that's fine with me.

What bothered me the most about it is that there really is that The Witcher 2 is mostly the same game as Mass Effect, just with swords instead of guns and choosing between supporting racists/terrorists instead of playing good cop/bad cop. Though TW2 does have a bit more branching. But somehow ME2 is a dumb action game and TW2 is the greatest RPG ever made.

I guess I'm just dumbfounded that someone could love ME1 but hate ME2. Now, if they were devout old-school CRPG fans who thought FO3 and New Vegas sucked simply because they didn't have isometric, turn-based combat, that would make sense. However, ME1 and ME2 are not hugely different from one another.

Now *THAT* is a great quote! Too late to change my previous comment, but, oh well. Part of the hate for ME2 is the auto-hate that EA has earned. Personally, I don't consider ME to be a "hardcore" RPG, but I definitely don't think it's an RPG-lite. It's closer to, say, Vampire The Masquerade (is that the proper title? I'm talking about the one that came out right before Half-Life 2) than Diablo or Dungeon Siege on the "barely an RPG - to - hardcorestorydrivenRPG" scale. If Diablo is a 2 and Planescape is a 10 then Mass Effect is a 6.5. And that's fine with me.

When you can take something like Mass Effect and turn it into Deer Hunter over a couple of sequels and still make your sales figures, that about says it all.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Mass Effect was never much of an RPG to begin with. You couldn't sneak or talk your way through the game and the game as a whole was pretty linear. It was, above all else, a shooter. Granted, Mass Effect 2 dumbed down some of the RPG elements but again, the first game wasn't exactly a hardcore CRPG to begin with.

Back on topic, I'm not terribly surprised that the new game is going to be post-apocalyptic. A bit disappointing but I'm interested to see Bioware's take on the setting.

Not that I disagree with your general point or anything. I just thought your example was faulty.

And your retort is faulty. Since when does "able to talk through the game" a requirement for something to be an RPG? By that math, only Planescape is an RPG. And Mass Effect was just as quasi-linear anything else BioWare had previously made. It was "A, then BCDE in any order, then F" just like everything from Baldur's Gate thru Jade Empire and KotOR. So, *IF* you call BioWare's previous games RPGs, then Mass Effect was an RPG. Officially, you didn't, but most people with the idiotic view that ME1 isn't an RPG *DO* consider BW's previous games to be legit RPGs.

And ME2 wasn't THAT different than ME1. And most of the changes were for the good. Removing the headache that was ME1's loot management for example, was a good change. It was streamlining, not dumbing down. I would have preferred a streamlined version of gun components instead of completely removing, but I don't think that removing scope from sniper rifles makes a game a non-RPG.

If that's your criteria as to what games are RPG's or not there wouldn't be enough games in the genre to cover the fingers of one hand.

Not really. Fallout 1, Fallout 2, Arcanum, Planescape: Torment, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Morrowind, Oblivion, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, Deus Ex, Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Hell, even Alpha Protocol. Granted, all these games featured combat to some extent but there were often stealthy and/or diplomatic solutions to any given quest. The same can't be said for the ME games, where 95% of quests can only be solved through combat.

Your assumption that linearity has something to do with whether a game is an RPG or a FPS is flawed. There are a bazillion (technical term) RPGs that are very linear whether it be invisible walls or a dungeon that has visible ones in the history of RPGs.

I'm not just talking about linearity in terms of level design. I'm talking in terms of branching narratives, choice & consequence and the ability to complete quests through significantly different approaches. The more meaningful choice a game provides, the more of an RPG it becomes. The less choice it provides, the less of an RPG it becomes. ME2 offered less choice than ME1, but ME1 didn't offer much choice to begin with so it wasn't really a significant change.

I guess I'm just dumbfounded that someone could love ME1 but hate ME2. Now, if they were devout old-school CRPG fans who thought FO3 and New Vegas sucked simply because they didn't have isometric, turn-based combat, that would make sense. However, ME1 and ME2 are not hugely different from one another.

Jerykk wrote on Nov 8, 2011, 02:28:That's a bit of an exaggeration. Mass Effect was never much of an RPG to begin with. You couldn't sneak or talk your way through the game and the game as a whole was pretty linear.

If that's your criteria as to what games are RPG's or not there wouldn't be enough games in the genre to cover the fingers of one hand.

When you can take something like Mass Effect and turn it into Deer Hunter over a couple of sequels and still make your sales figures, that about says it all.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Mass Effect was never much of an RPG to begin with. You couldn't sneak or talk your way through the game and the game as a whole was pretty linear. It was, above all else, a shooter. Granted, Mass Effect 2 dumbed down some of the RPG elements but again, the first game wasn't exactly a hardcore CRPG to begin with.

Back on topic, I'm not terribly surprised that the new game is going to be post-apocalyptic. A bit disappointing but I'm interested to see Bioware's take on the setting.

Not that I disagree with your general point or anything. I just thought your example was faulty.

I understand where you are coming from, however I would argue that Mass Effect was far more of a role-playing game than it's sequel(s). While the first one definitely catered to the FPS crowd, the true charm of it was that it also catered to the RPG crowd. Just because it was linear doesn't mean it wasn't an RPG. Your assumption that linearity has something to do with whether a game is an RPG or a FPS is flawed. There are a bazillion (technical term) RPGs that are very linear whether it be invisible walls or a dungeon that has visible ones in the history of RPGs.